In 1977 Borg was barred from playing Roland Garros because he was playing in World Team Tennis. The other dominant player on clay that year was Vilas, who won Roland Garros and the US Open (which was on clay then, the last year of 3 years on clay).

Borg and Vilas played twice that year on clay and Borg won both times. He won 6 Clay Court titles that year.

So would he have won at Roland Garros if politics didn't get in the way? I think so.

Less political but Borg's choice - but in 1982 he was still easily good enough to be the favourite going into Roland Garros.

In 1982 Mats Wilander worked out with Borg beforehand and reported that Borg easily beat him in practice regularly. Mats of course went on to win Roland Garros.

Again I think Borg would have had Roland Garros in the bag.

I know, I know if's, and but's...... but you got to admit he would be a favourite for both those titles.

Borg would have won in ´77 ..Vilas as great as he was that year, was still Borgs lil vodoodoll throughout Borgs career .. still not so sure bout '82. .. Lendl and Wilander and Clerc wold have been difficult for him.

Connors .. maybe but nowhere as solid as Borg on the red dirt. He was ok on Har Tru but thats quite different from how red clay palys in Europe. Trust me.

Borg would have won in ´77 ..Vilas as great as he was that year, was still Borgs lil vodoodoll throughout Borgs career .. still not so sure bout '82. .. Lendl and Wilander and Clerc wold have been difficult for him.

Connors .. maybe but nowhere as solid as Borg on the red dirt. He was ok on Har Tru but thats quite different from how red clay palys in Europe. Trust me.

Click to expand...

With Wilander, it would have been a physical and stamina challenge essentially against a much younger player.
Noah was in tremedous form in 1983. Beating Lendl and Wilander is no fluke. Borg had a few tough matches against Pecci and Panatta at RG. Noah is another rare specimen of these attacking clay court specialists that Borg did not like to play.
Now if you watch the 1984 RG final compared to the 1983 final, it’s just another level of play, just like another decade. What would have done Borg ? We can’t say for sure but we know that Mcenroe himself never won a major anymore after 1984. With his type of game, it would have been almost inhuman to last until age 30. That said Borg still is my favorite all time player.
Just my two cents about the "what ifs".

1982/83 - if his mind was up to it. If Borg had agreed to play those 10 tournaments at the start of the year he perhaps would have been in super shape and ready to dominate RG again. However Borg basically showed up in Monte Carlo with his mind elsewhere. He played three qualifying matches, pretty much dominating but then seemed to gradually lose interest - eventually losing to Noah while 'whistling' between points (so says Noah).

But there's little doubt about Borg's form in 1977. 22-0 on red clay and 2-0 against Vilas.

I disagree. It just looks that way, because Mac is serving and volleying. It's an aesthetic illusion. The passing shots are whizzing past him, especially in the last two sets.

Click to expand...

Noah was serving and volleying too in 1983. But he was temporizing a lot from the baseline when needed, patiently waiting for the opportunity as an educated clay courter. Also Wilander was well known for his slow safe passing shots. In fact he decided to complement his game afterwards since he felt frustrated in this match. Maybe it’s just Mcenroe’s flatter strokes. Still the effect is amazing, not what I would call an illusion.

Noah was in tremedous form in 1983. Beating Lendl and Wilander is no fluke. Borg had a few tough matches against Pecci and Panatta at RG. Noah is another rare specimen of these attacking clay court specialists that Borg did not like to play.

Click to expand...

I remember watching that Noah victory. He was amazing--like a gazelle.

Yes in 1977..though I imagine 82 is a bit tougher..I would have loved to see it though. I imagine though Borg could easily win until 84..though I don't imagine Lendl toppling him and it would be Wilander to do it as Lendl did not handle Borg well on clay at all..He had his chance in 81 and he blew it in that awful fifth set and Borg just showed he could break Lendl like a twig.

Noah was serving and volleying too in 1983. But he was temporizing a lot from the baseline when needed, patiently waiting for the opportunity as an educated clay courter. Also Wilander was well known for his slow safe passing shots. In fact he decided to complement his game afterwards since he felt frustrated in this match. Maybe it’s just Mcenroe’s flatter strokes. Still the effect is amazing, not what I would call an illusion.

Click to expand...

Noah would have been dangerous, but he didn't have the best groundies. Panatta/Pecci both had better groundies.

In 1977 Borg was barred from playing Roland Garros because he was playing in World Team Tennis. The other dominant player on clay that year was Vilas, who won Roland Garros and the US Open (which was on clay then, the last year of 3 years on clay).

Borg and Vilas played twice that year on clay and Borg won both times. He won 6 Clay Court titles that year.

So would he have won at Roland Garros if politics didn't get in the way? I think so.

Less political but Borg's choice - but in 1982 he was still easily good enough to be the favourite going into Roland Garros.

In 1982 Mats Wilander worked out with Borg beforehand and reported that Borg easily beat him in practice regularly. Mats of course went on to win Roland Garros.

Again I think Borg would have had Roland Garros in the bag.

I know, I know if's, and but's...... but you got to admit he would be a favourite for both those titles.

That would have made it 8 Roland Garros - wow.

Click to expand...

A favorite in 1977. But I still think it was Vilas' year.

As for 1982 - he didn't even try. So it wasn't like he was banned or anything. After the 1981 US Open, Borg basically gave up. So no way in the world was Borg going to win 7 best of five set matches!

Noah would have been dangerous, but he didn't have the best groundies. Panatta/Pecci both had better groundies.

Click to expand...

Certainly not the most gifted technically. Bigger serve and great physical presence though. Good fighting spirit as well and a good tennis mind. That third set against Wilander was tight. If he loses this one, he may well lose the match.

Noah would have been dangerous, but he didn't have the best groundies. Panatta/Pecci both had better groundies.

Click to expand...

Noah was good on clay against some players, like Lendl. For some reason his style bother Ivan.

I loved watching Noah play but his groundies were very suspect. He had a lot of problems hitting backhand passing shots crosscourt which is hard to believe because it's such a natural shot. Very little power on the groundstrokes and a lot of spin.

It was fun watching him against Wilander in 1983 in the French final. The backhand slice approach shots really hurt Wilander and Noah's reach at the net allowed him to hit a lot of volleys that would have passed anyone else.

Noah's volley wasn't that penetrating but it was effective.

I don't think Noah would have been able to handle a Borg in 1983 if Borg was in tournament shape. Too many weaknesses on the groundstrokes.

I saw Gomez crush Noah on Har tru at a Tournament of Champions final I think in 1987 by approaching the net often and almost every approach shot was hit to Noah's backhand. Noah couldn't pass him effectively.

in 1977 borg avoided playing paris and dallas because of his committments to WTT and the sponsors of the grand prix colgate. borg therefore looks a likely winner of paris because in 2 warm up events in nice and monte carlo he beat vilas. however, how good borg is unproven because every other year between 74-79 he did attempt to win dallas and paris; he only once in dallas in '76 and lost only once to panatta in '76. If he had to face connors in dallas and vilasin paris , we would have found out if borg really was a great player in 1977. as it is I rate no2 in '77. because vilas won 2 slams, runner-up aussie open and besides his 2 slams wom 16 other events. borg won 1 slam and 11 other events; his 3-0 head to head is not good enough oniyts own to give him the no1 spot.

In 1982 it would interestingto note how the practice matches went after wilander won in paris and in october in barcelona to confirm his status as the top clay court player on the ITF circuit. Did wilander play borg after wilander started to win on clay against vilas and lendl ?

in 1977 borg avoided playing paris and dallas because of his committments to WTT and the sponsors of the grand prix colgate. borg therefore looks a likely winner of paris because in 2 warm up events in nice and monte carlo he beat vilas. however, how good borg is unproven because every other year between 74-79 he did attempt to win dallas and paris; he only once in dallas in '76 and lost only once to panatta in '76. If he had to face connors in dallas and vilasin paris , we would have found out if borg really was a great player in 1977. as it is I rate no2 in '77. because vilas won 2 slams, runner-up aussie open and besides his 2 slams wom 16 other events. borg won 1 slam and 11 other events; his 3-0 head to head is not good enough oniyts own to give him the no1 spot.

Click to expand...

It depends on how you think about it. Personally, this "slam counting" strikes me as bogus.

I look at it this way: who was the better player on red clay? Borg. Who was the better player on grass? Borg. Who was the better player on carpet? Borg.

Vilas, just by the virtue of the fact that he played more matches on green clay than Borg, is better on that surface. One can say that.

I just don't see how it's even arguable that Vilas was the better player that year. It's not even close.

It depends on how you think about it. Personally, this "slam counting" strikes me as bogus.

I look at it this way: who was the better player on red clay? Borg. Who was the better player on grass? Borg. Who was the better player on carpet? Borg.

Vilas, just by the virtue of the fact that he played more matches on green clay than Borg, is better on that surface. One can say that.

I just don't see how it's even arguable that Vilas was the better player that year. It's not even close.

Click to expand...

The topic is whether Borg would have won in 1977 and it's very clear Borg was a superior player to Vilas in 1977. I have no doubt you are correct Cyborg.

Here's the head to head between the two according to ITF. Of course as we all know, it may not be 100% accurate but it does show Borg's mastery of Vilas. Even in 1977 Borg won the matches on clay against Vilas.

in 1977 borg avoided playing paris and dallas because of his committments to WTT and the sponsors of the grand prix colgate. borg therefore looks a likely winner of paris because in 2 warm up events in nice and monte carlo he beat vilas. however, how good borg is unproven because every other year between 74-79 he did attempt to win dallas and paris; he only once in dallas in '76 and lost only once to panatta in '76. If he had to face connors in dallas and vilasin paris , we would have found out if borg really was a great player in 1977. as it is I rate no2 in '77. because vilas won 2 slams, runner-up aussie open and besides his 2 slams wom 16 other events. borg won 1 slam and 11 other events; his 3-0 head to head is not good enough oniyts own to give him the no1 spot.

In 1982 it would interestingto note how the practice matches went after wilander won in paris and in october in barcelona to confirm his status as the top clay court player on the ITF circuit. Did wilander play borg after wilander started to win on clay against vilas and lendl ?

jeffrey

Click to expand...

Jeffrey, it's not unreasonable that you rate Borg number two in 1977 but rating for accomplishments for the year and deciding who is the better player are two different things. I'm not 100% certain who had the better year in 1977. It was a strange year for rating number one players but if you ever watched Borg play Vilas on any surface, it was a rare occasion that Vilas ever won. Clearly by 1977 Borg was the better player on clay. Let's put it this way, if you had your life on the line and Borg played Vilas on red clay at the French in 1977, would you bet on Vilas because you believe he had the better year or would you bet your life on Borg? I think most would go with Borg in 1977. We of course assume both players are healthy and in top condition. Borg was better on any surface.

This might have been covered on this forum in the past, but does anyone know why Borg retired from that 1973 BA final when he was leading? Was it a serious injury that he picked up? I don't think there's any question that he would have won the Roland Garros title in 1977 had he played there. Vilas's ass was basically his property especially on clay, and he only dropped a total of 14 games combined against him in the 1975 and 1978 finals. His victory over Vilas at Monte-Carlo in 1977 was very convincing indeed. I agree that perhaps his hopes of retaining his Wimbledon title later that year might have been affected though.
Had Borg continued to play at RG after 1981, and I don't think he would have been stopped there until 1984 at the earliest.

rankings must take account of actual achievement. borg's year in '77 was regarded as a bit thin with only that one big win at wimbledon by david gray. urban and world tennis also choose vilas as number one. winning wimbledon for borg is not enough. lendl had 3 world number ones and never won wimbledon

world rankings break down into 3 factores:

major events (slams in this decade but in 1960s jou would choosing pro majores like wemblely)

consistency/ regular tournament play

head to head or wins against top players.

you could eliminate the final category if you use super nine system meaning players are forced to play and meet each other as often as federer and nadal. i prefer treating all events outside the majors as the same and giving extra points for ctual wins so borg's 3 wins are given a numerical value

if you look at the champoionship race system of 2000-2008 the points for majors 800: 1150 for regular events. ie 2:3 ratio with ther nasters as a 19th event bonus'

since most ranking experts rank head to head as least important counting catergory the split of 100% becomes

45% 14 regular events
30% 4 majors
25% wins over top players

remember fedrerer was rated as the number one between 2004-7 even though his head to head was poor against nadal particularly in 2006 but he won every thing else. just because borg would have likely have won in paris does make hin him no1 because he did not play; if you play wtt like borg did you get no points to your world ranking and thus lose out in the number one race. REmember vilas had a 50 match win streak in the summer easily the best in the open era. borg neded to play dallas and paris to prove how good he was and vilas did win 5/20 matches against borg; its not impossible in the bestform of his life with his 50 match streak he might have beaten borg
Vilas was not really contender for the number one spot in '75 or '78 whenborg crushed hin on clay; not real opposition for borg.

Federer in 2006 was the best player on the three of four surfaces (let's count indoor carpet/hardcourts as a separate surface). The H2H thing doesn't really work here.

Tennis Magazine ranked Borg #1 in 1977 and the ATP also awarded him the player of the year.

Borg also won important events in Monte Carlo and Wembley.

I don't see how a 'super 9' system could even be applied. These guys quite simply did not play the same events. Vilas consistently avoided top events off clay. Borg missed a lot of green clay events in the summer.

I also reject the thinking that a player had to play RG to be considered the best on the surface. Laver, for example, did not play RG in the early 1970s. Was Jan Kodes better? Of course not.

What's important is that there is sufficient evidence to back up the claim. Borg's 22-0 record (including 2-0 v Vilas) is more than sufficient. For Laver, we can look at his win in (the deep) Rome in 1971 as evidence that he was the best.

Borg was the better player than Vilas, but overall in 1977 Vilas had the better record. It was not Vilas' fault, that Borg went out against Stockton at the USO. And Vilas had the form of his life, as one can see in his final, especially the final set, against Connors. Borg needed the final win over Connors at the Masters in New York MSG early January 1978 for the Nr. 1 place, but at MSG was beaten by Connors.
If Borg would have won in 1977 and 1982?In 1977 maybe Borg could do all things Vilas could do, but just a little better (as Tiriac once said). In 1982 i have my doubt. In the early and mid 80s there were some players, who could have worried Borg on clay. I don't say, that he wouldn't have beaten them, but not as easy as Gerulaitis, Solomon or others in the late 70s. Noah had a spontaneous game, that could upset Borg, who craved for rhythm. Lendl's hard forehand could put holes in Borg's defense - in 1981 only for spurs in one or two sets, but later maybe in more. McEnroe wasn't bad on clay, when he played with the new racket. I would have loved, to see Borg against 'Suede-killer' Mecir, a player, who gave you no rhythm at all.

Borg was the better player than Vilas, but overall in 1977 Vilas had the better record. It was not Vilas' fault, that Borg went out against Stockton at the USO.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% about the latter part. It is not Vilas's fault. Vilas deserves to be called the year's best har-tru player and there was a whole stretch of har-tru events in the summer, including the US Open. Injuries are never an excuse - they are part of the grind. Borg got injured - missed most of that stretch. Vilas dominated.

The WTT-RG situation, conversely, is part of the reality of the times. Something that wouldn't have happened today. It does not involve an injury. I could claim that Borg was the better player on har-tru that Vilas in 1977, but I would have no results to show for it from that year and therefore my claim is moot. But for red clay I can show results and I can explain why Borg not playing Roland Garros should not be used against him.

In a concretely standardized tour as we have today, we can very mechanically formulate these things. But this is harder to do for a year like 1977.

Whether Borg or Vilas had the better year in 1977 really depends on one's abstraction of things. In my opinion, most abstractions that place Vilas on top overrate his red clay accomplishments based on their sheer volume.

rankings must take account of actual achievement. borg's year in '77 was regarded as a bit thin with only that one big win at wimbledon by david gray. urban and world tennis also choose vilas as number one. winning wimbledon for borg is not enough. lendl had 3 world number ones and never won wimbledon

world rankings break down into 3 factores:

major events (slams in this decade but in 1960s jou would choosing pro majores like wemblely)

consistency/ regular tournament play

head to head or wins against top players.

you could eliminate the final category if you use super nine system meaning players are forced to play and meet each other as often as federer and nadal. i prefer treating all events outside the majors as the same and giving extra points for ctual wins so borg's 3 wins are given a numerical value

if you look at the champoionship race system of 2000-2008 the points for majors 800: 1150 for regular events. ie 2:3 ratio with ther nasters as a 19th event bonus'

since most ranking experts rank head to head as least important counting catergory the split of 100% becomes

45% 14 regular events
30% 4 majors
25% wins over top players

remember fedrerer was rated as the number one between 2004-7 even though his head to head was poor against nadal particularly in 2006 but he won every thing else. just because borg would have likely have won in paris does make hin him no1 because he did not play; if you play wtt like borg did you get no points to your world ranking and thus lose out in the number one race. REmember vilas had a 50 match win streak in the summer easily the best in the open era. borg neded to play dallas and paris to prove how good he was and vilas did win 5/20 matches against borg; its not impossible in the bestform of his life with his 50 match streak he might have beaten borg
Vilas was not really contender for the number one spot in '75 or '78 whenborg crushed hin on clay; not real opposition for borg.

jeffrey

Click to expand...

Jeffrey,

The question is NOT whether Borg was number one in 1977 but whether he would win the French in 1977. You didn't answer my question, if both Vilas and Borg reached the French Open final in 1977, who do you think would win?

The thread in itself is hypothetical. Borg improved by a great margin in 1977 from 1976 and at this point was clearly better than Vilas. I believe there is a greater than 50% (the percentage is probably far higher than that) chance Borg would have won the French in 1977 if he played.

Let's put this another way. Let's go back to 1952, a year Frank Sedgman was quite dominant in amateur tennis. Sedgman lost I believe six matches the entire year and was quite overwhelming in most of his matches and won Wimbledon. Gonzalez and Kramer were unable to play Wimbledon because they were banned because they were professionals.

Clearly as far as traditional accomplishments are concerned, Sedgman had a better year than Gonzalez or Kramer. However if Gonzalez or Kramer were allowed to play Wimbledon in 1952, would you think they would win Wimbledon over Sedgman? I would lean toward that. Now Sedgman did give Kramer some problems two years later but Kramer was suffering from arthritis at that time and wasn't at his peak.

The question with Borg winning in 1977 is the same type of question. Borg was banned from the French because of WTT. Would Borg win the French if he played? Bottom line, was Borg better on red clay than Vilas in 1977? They played twice on clay that year, Borg won both. Vilas won one set. My answer is Borg would win, and probably very easily.

i must admit i am only interested in the no1 ranking for 1977 and my stats prove vilas desereved it given that the year of tennis was domniated by clay court tennis on har-tru and red clay. vilas entered and won the 2 majors on clay. clay was king in 1977. borg deserves to be severely punished for not playing paris and dallas. He only performed well at one major wimbledon. one major win and 4th round retirement is not world one form against a player with 2 majors , 16 other wins and a 50 match streak. all borg has is i repeat one major , 11 other wins and the 3-0 edge over vilas. 3-0 to is not enough for borg. nadal had a 4-2 edge on federer in 2006 but federer's major and tournament record made him number one. nadal was better on hard couts and clay in 2006 against federer, but weaker on grass and fast indoors. nadal enfed up with the head to head advantage becauise clay and hard courts are more prevalent than grass (hardly exists) and indoors (just the autumn). head to head wins count but they are not every thing and just as nadal was not best with only one major to federer's 3 majors in 2006 nor was borg the best with only one major and only 11 wins and only a 30 match winning streak compared to vilas' 2 major , ru aussie on grass, 16 other wins and 50 match winning streak . head to head advantasge for borg is only worth a little just as it was for nadal in 2006. vilas was the player who improved in 1977 not borg. vilas was my number 5 in 1976 and not remotely a contender for the top 3. he improved as lot in 1977 under tirac and produced one great year of tennis like ashe did in '75 and smith did in '72. borg was no2 in '76 with official 6 wins but if you count all his 4man events he won 5 or 6 four man events against the likes of vilas,nastase, newcombe, laver and panatta. he took 4-man events very seriously and only lostonce in 1976 to the only players who stood a chance of beating him regularly in 1976 namely nastase and connors at caracas in october 1976. that gives borg one major in 1976, ru at us open plus 10 or 11 other including dallas wins just as good as '77. borg was no2 in 76 and he stayed no2 in '77 . borg did not improve from 76 to 77. he played great at wimbledon in '76 not losing a set thrasing vilas, dominating tanner and comfortably beating nastase all in straight setes. in '77 he was taken to 5 sets 3 times because edmondson, gerulaitis and connors played higher standard tennis than the ordinary performances of his opponebts in 1976. its vilas whio improved to challenge for number one; borg was still the same player avery close number 2.

I am not fan of either borg or vilas nor do i dislike either of them just as i have the same attitude with connors and lendl. my favourite is laver unlike cyborg who makes his favourtism actually quite clear.

i must admit i am only interested in the no1 ranking for 1977 and my stats prove vilas desereved it given that the year of tennis was domniated by clay court tennis on har-tru and red clay. vilas entered and won the 2 majors on clay. clay was king in 1977. borg deserves to be severely punished for not playing paris and dallas.

borg did not improve from 76 to 77. he played great at wimbledon in '76 not losing a set thrasing vilas, dominating tanner and comfortably beating nastase all in straight setes. in '77 he was taken to 5 sets 3 times because edmondson, gerulaitis and connors played higher standard tennis than the ordinary performances of his opponebts in 1976. its vilas whio improved to challenge for number one; borg was still the same player avery close number 2.

I am not fan of either borg or vilas nor do i dislike either of them just as i have the same attitude with connors and lendl. my favourite is laver unlike cyborg who makes his favourtism actually quite clear.

jeffrey

jeffrey

Click to expand...

Jeffrey,

The thread is not who is number one for 1977, it's would Borg have won the French in 77 and 82. Check the records, Borg was far better in 77 than in 76 overall. It's not close. Borg barely won 80% of his matches in 1976 but was over 90% in 1977. He also won more tournaments with less losses.

One of my interests in tennis is to see who is the best player in tennis for any year and who accomplished the most in any year. These two answers can be different. In 1977, Vilas may very well been number one but I believe Borg was the overall superior player and I'm not sure about the former assumption.

Vilas played more tournaments and won more matches and more majors. There is no doubt about that.

Borg won Wimbledon, defeated Vilas twice on clay fairly easily and if you count the year end Masters as part of the 1977 season, defeated Vilas three time without a loss, losing only one set.

The evidence clearly points to the fact that if Borg played Vilas at the French in 1977, Borg won.

There is no absolute proof here but I know this, saying who was number one for the year in 1977 has nothing to do with the question.

Jeffrey,

I think Cyborg was very logical in his evidence incidentally and while he may like Borg it was very convincing and I don't think it affected his judgement.

Jeffrey, you admit you like Laver and I could easily start a thread asking who would win Wimbledon in 1965 if Laver competed. Emerson actually won and had a great record that year. I would argue that Laver probably would have won if he was able to compete in 1965. He was not allowed to.

i must admit i am only interested in the no1 ranking for 1977 and my stats prove vilas desereved it given that the year of tennis was domniated by clay court tennis on har-tru and red clay.

Click to expand...

Says who? Jeffreyneave?

vilas entered and won the 2 majors on clay. clay was king in 1977. borg deserves to be severely punished for not playing paris and dallas.

Click to expand...

Vilas didn't play Dallas. Oops. Double standard.

He only performed well at one major wimbledon. one major win and 4th round retirement is not world one form against a player with 2 majors , 16 other wins and a 50 match streak. all borg has is i repeat one major , 11 other wins and the 3-0 edge over vilas. 3-0 to is not enough for borg.

Click to expand...

Selective. Monte Carlo and Wembley were very important events.

nadal had a 4-2 edge on federer in 2006 but federer's major and tournament record made him number one. nadal was better on hard couts and clay in 2006 against federer, but weaker on grass and fast indoors.

Click to expand...

Nadal was not better on hardcourts than Federer in 2006. You're reaching.

nadal enfed up with the head to head advantage becauise clay and hard courts are more prevalent than grass (hardly exists) and indoors (just the autumn). head to head wins count but they are not every thing and just as nadal was not best with only one major to federer's 3 majors in 2006 nor was borg the best with only one major and only 11 wins and only a 30 match winning streak compared to vilas' 2 major , ru aussie on grass, 16 other wins and 50 match winning streak . head to head advantasge for borg is only worth a little just as it was for nadal in 2006. vilas was the player who improved in 1977 not borg.

Click to expand...

This is mostly unreadable. I was able to make out the part about Vilas improving and not Borg and that's patently wrong.

vilas was my number 5 in 1976 and not remotely a contender for the top 3. he improved as lot in 1977 under tirac and produced one great year of tennis like ashe did in '75 and smith did in '72. borg was no2 in '76 with official 6 wins but if you count all his 4man events he won 5 or 6 four man events against the likes of vilas,nastase, newcombe, laver and panatta. he took 4-man events very seriously and only lostonce in 1976 to the only players who stood a chance of beating him regularly in 1976 namely nastase and connors at caracas in october 1976. that gives borg one major in 1976, ru at us open plus 10 or 11 other including dallas wins just as good as '77. borg was no2 in 76 and he stayed no2 in '77 . borg did not improve from 76 to 77.

Click to expand...

I can tell you at least one way Borg improved from 1976 to 1977. His red clay performances. Borg went undefeated 22-0 on red clay in 1977, but lost on the surface twice in 1976.

he played great at wimbledon in '76 not losing a set thrasing vilas, dominating tanner and comfortably beating nastase all in straight setes. in '77 he was taken to 5 sets 3 times because edmondson, gerulaitis and connors played higher standard tennis than the ordinary performances of his opponebts in 1976. its vilas whio improved to challenge for number one; borg was still the same player avery close number 2.

Click to expand...

I agree that Vilas did improve, but Borg established himself as an unbeatable clay court force in 1977, something that could not be said in 1976.

You left out ATP, which awarded Borg player of the year. I am also not aware that jeffrey worked for a publication. Should I add my name to this list? Why leave me out?

I am not fan of either borg or vilas nor do i dislike either of them just as i have the same attitude with connors and lendl. my favourite is laver unlike cyborg who makes his favourtism actually quite clear.

Incidentally Borg received (correctly IMO although I heartily disagree with the ATP computer ranking many times) the ATP Player Of The Year Award both in 1976 and 1977 -- in the end awarding him as year end No. 1 player five years in a row 1976-80 when he was 20 to 24 years old. When did we ever see such a versatile great player and seasoned General in competition at such a young age? Will we ever see another...

I say Borg was the best player with the greatest and highest sustained levels of performance both those years.

I have Jimbo as co-No. 1 in 1976 based on his great records on the lesser events and against Borg in the minor tourneys when Borg wasn't at his best.

Many people and experts support my view that Borg was No. 1 for 1976. Fred Tupper credits Borg all the way for his Wimby win -- "finest sustained tennis of the year during the biggest tourney of the year".

Björn Hellberg is adamant that Borg was "clearly" the best player based on results in 1976 but Hellberg (being a Laver for GOAT-man and very results-oriented with focus on the major events) gives Vilas sole No. 1 status in 1977 just because of "stronger record" but he easily admits that Borg was the best player in 1977 -- i. e. Vilas just won more matches against weak fields overflowing with stiffs ripe for the plucking. Like Jimbo's own summer circuit in 1974. Air inflating his record beyond his actual level and achievements greatly aided by absence of great opposition, strange political boycotts and an over-reliance on quantity over quality...

I rate 1976 and 1977 fairly close to 1999. Strongest sustained achievement and highest level of play in 1999 was IMO made by Pete Sampras. The Sampras Summer of 1999 was the finest play by Pete I've ever seen -- add to that the YEC and it's a done deal. But Andre was also amazing everywhere else earning him IMO a clear co-No. 1 for just the strongest overall record.

Just as in Laver's wonderful victory in five stunning sets over Rosewall at Dunlop in 1970 looks clearly sharper IMO and had greater tennis (even better stats) than either Rosewall's USO win or Newk's Wimby-victory that same year.

1977 was a weird year like 1970 and 1999. If they were not injured Borg, Laver and Sampras produced the most impressive results weighing in every thinkable factor in three dimensions (important stage performances, great opponents in form, stats, overall impression, peak level) if one is seriously looking for the best tennis player and strongest and most important achievement of any particular year.

I say Laver also wins Wimby 1965 -- IMO probably in great blowout style considering The Rocket's stunning level and peak results that year living up to his nickname to the hilt.

By the way, I have McEnroe and Wilander as co-No. 1s in 1983. Finest sustained tennis and greatest achievement was Mac's blazing Wimby-win but Mats had a stronger record and could almost match Mac's Wimby level at Cincy that year but I put Mac's sustained greatness of play at Wimby as slightly higher than Mats level at Cincy plus that sustaining the quality for seven straight best of five set matches during two consecutive weeks against the most amped opposition at the biggest stage in tennis is definitely just as great as Mats amazing overall record in 1983 IMO...

Borg didn't meet Connors when he was in his finest form in 1976 -- certainly they didn't meet at Wimby and all Borg's losses to Jimmy falls as much on Björn's "complex" towards Jimbo as it does for the lack of matches when he was at his best form just as much as it owes to Jimmy playing great in those minor tourney wins.

Remember Federer's 2-4 against Rafa in 2006 or Mac's 0-4 against Lendl in 1981 or heck just go to Nastase who was 3-1 against Jimbo in 1976 almost blowouting Jimmy every time. By strict quantity over quality reasoning one could say that if Borg had chosen a hockey career instead of tennis in the late 60s (not improbable) Nastase would've probably won Wimby and US Open in 1976 since Connors had a enormous, inflated beyond reality complex playing Ilie up until and including that year...

H2Hs are never the barometer for the best level. And Borg Wimby win was made in greater fashion (stats etc) than Jimmy's USO victory -- plus that Wimby is bigger than USO -- plus that Borg has a final at the second biggest tourney of the year USO and a victory in the greatest tourney Wimby -- both of them entering the two most amped up fields of the year.

Borg's performance, importance of achievements and record at the toughest fields outclasses Jimbo's QF at the greatest tourney Wimby (blowout loss to Tanner who Borg subsequently executed in straight sets) and victory at the second biggest tourney...

Borg didn't meet Connors when he was in his finest form in 1976 -- certainly they didn't meet at Wimby and all Borg's losses to Jimmy falls as much on Björn's "complex" towards Jimbo as it does for the lack of matches when he was at his best form just as much as it owes to Jimmy playing great in those minor tourney wins.

Remember Federer's 2-4 against Rafa in 2006 or Mac's 0-4 against Lendl in 1981 or heck just go to Nastase who was 3-1 against Jimbo in 1976 almost blowouting Jimmy every time. By strict quantity over quality reasoning one could say that if Borg had chosen a hockey career instead of tennis in the late 60s (not improbable) Nastase would've probably won Wimby and US Open in 1976 since Connors had a enormous, inflated beyond reality complex playing Ilie up until and including that year...

H2Hs are never the barometer for the best level. And Borg Wimby win was made in greater fashion (stats etc) than Jimmy's USO victory -- plus that Wimby is bigger than USO -- plus that Borg has a final the second biggest tourney fo the year and a victory in the greatest tourney -- both of them entering the two most amped up fields of the year.

Borg performance, importance of achievements and record at the toughest fields outclasses Jimbo's QF at the greatest tourney Wimby (blowout loss to Tanner who Borg subsequently executed in straight sets) and victory at the second biggest tourney...

Borg didn't meet Connors when he was in his finest form in 1976 -- certainly they didn't meet at Wimby and all Borg's losses to Jimmy falls as much on Björn's "complex" towards Jimbo as it does for the lack of matches when he was at his best form just as much as it owes to Jimmy playing great in those minor tourney wins.

Remember Federer's 2-4 against Rafa in 2006 or Mac's 0-4 against Lendl in 1981 or heck just go to Nastase who was 3-1 against Jimbo in 1976 almost blowouting Jimmy every time. By strict quantity over quality reasoning one could say that if Borg had chosen a hockey career instead of tennis in the late 60s (not improbable) Nastase would've probably won Wimby and US Open in 1976 since Connors had a enormous, inflated beyond reality complex playing Ilie up until and including that year...

H2Hs are never the barometer for the best level. And Borg Wimby win was made in greater fashion (stats etc) than Jimmy's USO victory -- plus that Wimby is bigger than USO -- plus that Borg has a final the second biggest tourney fo the year and a victory in the greatest tourney -- both of them entering the two most amped up fields of the year.

Borg performance, importance of achievements and record at the toughest fields outclasses Jimbo's QF at the greatest tourney Wimby (blowout loss to Tanner who Borg subsequently executed in straight sets) and victory at the second biggest tourney...

Click to expand...

I can see why Borg was voted player of the year in 1976. Wimbledon + Dallas were both huge.

I do value H2H a bit more than you, though. And Jimmy also didn't play Dallas, but did play Philly where beat Bjorn.